More wolves

[bobbyo]

All you journalists, scientists and college boys are sure ruining this wolf debate. All your facts, case studies, citations and empirical evidence certainly puts a damper on the wolf haters arguments. Yet, it doesn?t answer the fundamental question. Should wolves be reintroduced to Arizona? and at what cost? Scientifically speaking is the wolf going to some how make the present day ecological system function better or is their reintroduction another vain attempt to manipulate the environment? I support a limited introduction of the wolves for my own selfish reasons. When I go in nature I like to envision it as pristine and fallow. The wolf in the woods adds to this illusion.

 

Although I am pro wolf, the implementation of the reintroduction program has turned into a farce. It seems to be not only a wolf on welfare program(you writers need to give me a citation for that line), but a researcher/scientist welfare program that was orchestrated too close to population centers etc. Was this for the wolf or the researcher. There is also no incentive for the reintroduction people to make their program a success. How hard would you work if you knew that as soon as your job was a success you would be fired! I believe there needs to be a definitive time limit given to this project and the wolf needs to stand on their own four feet. If they can't make it, they can't make it. They became extinct here for a reason.

Bob

[fatfootdoc]

interesting thread, but I have it all figured out now. I am going to find someone here in NM who's dogs died of parvo, then I am going to go get a big bag of dog crap from their house. I will then make it my mission to sow parvo infected dog crap across the West to eliminate the scourge of the Mexican grey wolf. Yes, you may call me Johnny Crappleseed! AG

[Outdoor Writer]

Scientifically speaking is the wolf going to some how make the present day ecological system function better or is their reintroduction another vain attempt to manipulate the environment?

 

No doubt anyone who knows about the history of fish and wildlife in AZ won't want to step out on that slippery slope.

 

Otherwise, someone might mention the stocking of non-native Rocky Mt. elk in AZ in the early 1900s to replace the extinct Merriam's species, promulgating the spread of desert sheep or the planting of RM sheep and reestablishing a Gould's turkey population. In the great scheme of things, NONE of these helped the "ecological system function better." In fact, some might argue all of the above took place merely to provide hunters with more targets. On the fishy side of things, we might even include bringing back the Apache trout (now working on the Gila!) and planting non-native fish in streams and lakes, such as the rainbow trout at Lee's Ferry.

 

Now, if the wolf does as many believe it will -- keep big-game numbers down -- it's possible to point at that as making the "ecological system function better," because it would be working within the natural scheme of things. To the great dismay of hunters, the wolf would be then filling the same niche in nature where it did before humans mucked up the ecological system by wiping out the wolf here. -TONY

[TLH]

Scientifically speaking is the wolf going to some how make the present day ecological system function better or is their reintroduction another vain attempt to manipulate the environment?

 

No doubt anyone who knows about the history of fish and wildlife in AZ won't want to step out on that slippery slope.

 

Otherwise, someone might mention the stocking of non-native Rocky Mt. elk in AZ in the early 1900s to replace the extinct Merriam's species, promulgating the spread of desert sheep or the planting of RM sheep and reestablishing a Gould's turkey population. In the great scheme of things, NONE of these helped the "ecological system function better." In fact, some might argue all of the above took place merely to provide hunters with more targets. On the fishy side of things, we might even include bringing back the Apache trout (now working on the Gila!) and planting non-native fish in streams and lakes, such as the rainbow trout at Lee's Ferry.

 

Now, if the wolf does as many believe it will -- keep big-game numbers down -- it's possible to point at that as making the "ecological system function better," because it would be working within the natural scheme of things. To the great dismay of hunters, the wolf would be then filling the same niche in nature where it did before humans mucked up the ecological system by wiping out the wolf here. -TONY

 

It would have been nice if they would have put them where they were in greater numbers and that is closer to the Mexican border.

 

Tony, you missed one species that is on the agenda for AZ and that is the Jaguar--it has been gone from AZ for a long time but now they are spending time and money to allow them to re-establish themselves in AZ--not sure if they have in fact transplanted these big cats but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Outdoor Writer]

If recall some reading I did, the Mexican gray actually ranged as far north as the Colorado/Utah borders, though you're right in that the major population was concentrated from mid-AZ and NM to the south, including part of TX and of course, Mexico.

 

I doubt any actual jaguar plants have occurred, but they are doing quit a bit of monitoring with cameras and such down there. -TONY

[KGAINES]

?Parvo & Ranchers won't be the downfall of the wolf - That I guarantee...?

 

You are absolutely correct in that statement, ranchers gave it their best shot and well now it seems they are hated more than any wolves, and parvo won?t work either because we will vaccinate, or we will replace the ones that die with a fresh new hand raised batch. I don?t mind wolves in the wild, but I have a hard time with what is actually happening here. As far as I know at least the jaguar has came back on its own, the wolf sure didn?t.

[fatfootdoc]

The problem I have with the wolves is that they are not successfully establishing themselves and they have to be baby sat or killed for interbreeding or killing livestock etc. It was brought up that the elk were reintroduced and that is exactly right, they were reintroduced and thrived with little to no outside intervention. These wolves are a joke!, If they can not make it on their own, so be it we tried, they failed, there is no longer a niche in the ecosystem for them, tough. NIce try but they should just write this off as a failure, quit wasting all the time money and effort that could easily be used somewhere else(like proving that the mexican spotted owl nests in trees other than dead standing oak). If those knotheads would just admit failure and say hey , we gave it our best shot, then this would be a moot point. Those wolves have been given every opportunity to thrive and have not, therefore it was not meant to be. Oh by the way, the trout reintroduction in the GIla at least in NM has resulted in countless miles of river and stream closures to fishing and use of piscicides to eradicate non native species(that poison must be selective or something, it only kills non native species!?,) we were also promised that those streams would be reopened for fishing, but as of yet there is not even speculation of reopening those streams to angling. It all just leads to decreased fishing and hunting opportunities for those of us who support these stupid programs with the purchase of our hunting licenses and habitat stamps. Kind lf like taxation without representation! oh well that is my 2 cents worth. AG

[Outdoor Writer]

It often takes a couple generations before a species can reestablish a genuine self-sustaining population when most of the plants involved captive-bred critters. Sometimes that even occurs with animals captured in the wild. The first few plants of Gould's turkey from Mexico to AZ during the 1980s were also complete failures, with most of them becoming coyote fodder. Now there are several thriving populations in various areas to allow limited hunting opportunities.

 

As for the controls being used on the wolves, they are more SOCIALLY related, not biologically related. The EIS set up a designated area for the experimental population and also outlined all the controls that would occur for the specifc circumstances, especially when it comes to killing domestic livestock. The two instances of killing packs for "interbreeding" involved a female wolf breeding with a domestic dog AFTER release into the recovery area. It would seem fairly obvious to most folks that allowing them to promulgate further would completely defeat the purpose of the entire experiment -- establishing a pure strain of the Mexican gray wolf. So what's going on shouldn't be a surrpise in the way of control. If you care to read the original EIS and lots of other info, check out Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.

 

Generally they poison the water to remove all the non-native species BEFORE they restock it with native fish. The chemical they use -- often rotenone -- has a short "shelf" life in the water. The Gila trout program is fairly new, as far as reestablishing entire wild fisheries goes. The same types of closures and poisoning operations occurred when the Apache trout program began many, many years back. Today, the places that were closed to fishing are no longer, and the Apache is no longer on the ES list. In fact, most fisheries on the White Mt. Res. contain Apache trout now.

 

BTW, even the elk populations here had to beefed up after the initial introduction. Here's a bit of historical background from an article I wrote about 15 years ago. Note more thn 20 years passed before the first hunt occurred. -TONY

 

 

For instance, uncontrolled and abusive hunting practices in the late 19th century took its toll on the native Merriam?s elk. By the early 20th century, this species was extinct in both states.

 

In Arizona, members of the Winslow B.P.O.E (ELk) Club obtained 86 elk in 1913 from Yellowstone National Park, one of the few places in the country where elk still flourished then. They transported the animals to Arizona by train and released then on the Mogollon Rim, where the Merriam's elk once lived. Over time, more Yellowstone elk supplemented the original bunch on the Rim, and other areas near Clifton, Cutter, Kingman, Williams and Alpine received transplanted elk. Even Mt. Graham near Safford received a small number, but the animals never took hold there.

 

By 1935, when the first regulated hunt occurred, the various herds in the state had found a niche and were multiplying at a respectable rate. Of the 276 who hunted that year, 145 killed elk. The annual hunts started in 1950, and more than 4,000 hunters harvested 1,500 bulls and cows that year.

[bobbyo]

Thank god for the Elk reintroduction program. I am sure the cattlemen were strongly against this also. Less browse for the cattle. The main difference I see between the elk and the wolf reintroduction program is that the elk can act like elk and do all the things that elk do. Eat, poop, bugle, reproduce, ect. The wolf has all these special un-Wolf like rules it must follow. The wolf can only kill deer and elk to live. It cannot kill the stupid easy to catch cattle or yappy house pets. The wolf must stay off the reservation and it must stay out of New Mexico(probably Germany too.) It can't have sex with its 99.8 % cousin. What is a Wolf to do? poor puppy.

Bob

[fatfootdoc]

There are definitely wolf in NM on the western border I have seen them in 23 while whitetail hunting.

Outdoor Writer-- How do they insure that there are no indiginous species in the streams before they poison it? There are definitely minnows and such that are native to those streams that get poisoned, right? Also in NM there are streams that the Gila trout is being reintroduced to and they are closed and have been for several years. What it all comes down to is that some support the reintroduction of wolves and some dont and we all have to agree to disagree. AG

[Outdoor Writer]

How do they insure that there are no indigenous species in the streams before they poison it? There are definitely minnows and such that are native to those streams that get poisoned, right? AG

 

It's not real difficult to survey a stream/river to see what's living in it by either netting or electroshocking. Indigenous species in one stream are only of any import if they do not exist elsehere in significant numbers, i.e. a species that might be threatened or endangered overall.

 

I think I addressed the stream closure for the Gila trout in the previous reply. Self-sustaining populations do not come about instantly like adding water to a cup of Ramin noodles. The Apache trout reintro waters were also closed to fishing for several years, just as elk hunting seasons were when they first attempted to reestablish them in AZ. -TONY

[Diamondbackaz]

It's my understanding that the Meriams Elk is unproven to ever exist????

[Outdoor Writer]

It's my understanding that the Meriams Elk is unproven to ever exist????

 

DB,

 

Hadn't heard any such meanderings. Perhaps you can illuminate further? -TONY

[audsley]

I came late to this thread and hope everyone isn't entirely burnt out yet. It's an important topic.

 

First, I want to thank Outdoor Writer for enriching the discussion with good facts and logic.

 

Next I'll say I don't much care about the genetic purity debate either. I attended the same presentation TLH heard and can confirm that we were sure enough told there has been no doggie DNA found in the reintro wolves. However, the same presenter told us two female wolves around Snowflake managed to get themselves in a family way with local dogs and had to be captured taken to the wolf abortion clinic. Am I to believe wolves and dogs have never crossed in Arizona or Mexico before?

 

Question: If a wolf's a wolf and a dog's a dog, what's a Husky? I'm not sure I know what a purebred wolf really is and don't much care.

 

Now for the important stuff. We were also told that Mexican gray wolves require 6 to 8 lbs of meat per day. If they live exclusively on elk, that works out to about one elk a month. If you have 100 wolves in the non-reservation part of the state, that means 1200 elk a year would be devoted to supporting wolves. That sounds like a lot until you figure we have a target elk population (set by AG&F) for non-reservation parts of the state of 25,000 elk. An annual take of 1,200 would amount to 4.8% which again might sound like a lot until you remember that Arizona elk have the potential to increase their population by almost 50% each year due to little or no winter kill here. That said, I think there's room for wolves as long as they stick to the elk country.

 

Unfortunately, we (TLH, myself and some other people) also heard the wolf expert say that the wolf lobby would love to have wolves in unit 36B along the border west of Nogales. That's because 36B is part of the wolf's historic range, would connect Arizona wolves to wolf habitat in Mexico and would match the wolves to their preferred prey animal - the Coues Whitetail. Presently they are waiting to see what will happen with the border fence before pursuing it further.

 

Now this is a proposition of absurb proportions given the inadequate prey base in 36B. Using the data I discussed above, a wolf pack of eight would need to take more whitetails than hunters kill in that unit on an annual basis, and wolves don't restrict their kills to antlered deer only. I'm sure AG&F and USFWS would never actually try to put wolves in 36B once the impracticalities start being identified. Unfortunately, wild-eyed wolf-loving greenies don't know that, and I believe they have wolves in their plans for the Tumacacori, Pajarito and Atascosa Mtns. in 36B. For some time now Tucson enviros have been trying to get Congressman Raul Grijalva to introduce a bill to make this area into another Wilderness. I believe wolves are part of their vision for southern Arizona's future.

[Outdoor Writer]

audsley,

 

Of course, I can't say it will NEVER happen, but I doubt we'll see any wolves in 36B for a long, long time -- if ever. First off, they would have to wait a minimum of 10 years for the final review of the Blue experiment in regards to its success or failure. And then in order to expand the range to 36B, it would take another whole new process, starting with the initial EIS, etc. Lastly, there are too many suburban areas within easy striking distance for wandering wolves down there. While 36B -- one of my favs for Coues hunting -- is relatively wild to the west, that's not the case to the east and northeast.

 

But hey, having wolves prowling and perhaps discouraging the illegals from passing through there might not be all that bad. -TONY